The court granted anticipatory bail considering the petitioner's age, ongoing civil disputes, and lack of prior arrests.

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5924/2025 Between:

1. E NDURI RAVINDRA MURTHY, S/O SREE RAM MURTHY, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.25/430, KOJJILLIPETA, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Rep. The Station House Officer, Kruthivennu Police Station ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 by the petitioner for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No.57 of 2025 of Kruthivennu Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 189(3), 329(3), 324(4), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act , 1984.

2. Facts, in brief, of the case are that on 02.02.2025 at about 10:00 hours at Chinagollapalem village, Kruthivennu Mandal, the complainant, Peddi Parameswara Vara Prasad, who works as a watchman for the Sababul Garden of Kollu Ranganadh and Nadakuditi Arjuna, along with other workers, went to the said land to cut Sababul trees. At that time, accused persons namely Borra Radhakrishna, Kasani Garataiah, Kasani Padma, Arava Srinu, Jamisetti Nani, Batraju Ramanajaneyulu, Mallavolu Srinu, Jonnala Rama Krishna, Chandu Krishna Murthy, Bandreddi Prasad, Bandreddi Suresh, and others allegedly gathered unlawfully on behalf of Yenduri Ravindra Murthy, armed with sticks, knives, and chilli powder. They obstructed the workers’ lorry, damaged its contents, and assaulted the complainant and others, causing injuries. The complainant sustained bleeding injuries to his leg and thigh and a broken tooth. The accused also allegedly dug up the road to prevent vehicle movement. The complainant was later shifted to the Government Hospital for treatment.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

4. Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family. The age of the petitioner is 68 and there are case and counter case pending in between the petitioner and de-facto complainant and moreover there is a civil suit pending in between the petitioner and de-facto complainant. The petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner would abide by any condition to be imposed by this court.

5. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that the some more material witnesses have to be examined; investigation is not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law; and urged to dismiss the bail petition.

6. As seen from the record, the petitioner is aged about 68 years. There are case and counter cases pending. In neither case any arrest was effected. Afortiori, there is a civil dispute pending between the parties. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to consider request of petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed with the following directions:

a) In the event of arrest of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the s